Prediction Markets

March 29, 2010

Children With Pre-Existing Conditions - Problem Solved!?!

That was easy! The WSJ reports that all the HHS had to do was ask nicely and the question of whether children with pre-existing conditions got relief under the new health reform bill was solved:

Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government
issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions,
after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new
health-care legislation.

The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick
children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the
bill's passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn't
require them to accept sick children until 2014.

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans,
initially said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments
for sick children who already were customers.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, sent AHIP
president Karen Ignagni a letter Monday pledging to issue new
regulations in coming weeks to clarify that insurers must take
applications from sick children starting in September. "Now is not the
time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken
system," Ms. Sebelius said.

AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from
the law's mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which
goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But
the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.

That was easy!

It's worth remembering that, within reason, the insurance companies can play by any set of rules as long as they all play by the same rules. If some companies continue to deny coverage to families of children with pre-existing conditions, the firms that take them on will need to restructure as philanthropic enterprises.

And do keep in mind - since the insurers will be able to raise rates, they won't be paying for these kids (lib fantasies notwithstanding); the rest of us who pay insurance premiums will.

In that sense, this preserves the Democratic Party role as the party of random wealth transfers. Just imagine that somewhere a self-employed software consultant pulling down several hundred thousand a year has been paying for his child's asthma treatment out of pocket because he can't get coverage. But now he can, thereby leading to an increase in the insurance premiums for everybody else, including Mailroom Mary, who is trying to get by on $25,000 a year. Such a victory for social justice!

How often will that be happening? No one knows! This new rule is not means tested as to beneficiaries and no one is yet eligible for premium subsidies, but Dems are thrilled anyway. Oh, well - they are thrilled with the individual mandate that forces the young and healthy to subsidize the older and less healthy (but often higher paid). Random wealth transfers.

If I had to guess I would imagine that, given the recent expansions in Medicaid and S-CHIP, the beneficiaries of this children fol-de-rol will not be low earners and may include a lot of successful self-employed people. Which is fine.

The WSJ includes this on coverage:

The number of children who would be affected by the broadest
interpretation of the law could be relatively small. The Children's
Health Insurance Program, a 1997 health-care plan for low-income
children, is already credited with extending coverage to about eight
million children who are not poor enough for Medicaid and includes rich
benefits and low cost sharing.

Roughly eight million children remain uninsured, according to the
Kaiser Family Foundation, but just 1% to 2%—or 80,000 to 160,000—have a
health condition such as cystic fibrosis or cancer that would
disqualify them from private insurance coverage, said Sara Rosenbaum,
chairwoman of the health-policy department at George Washington
University and a children's health-care expert. Many of those
children's families were unaware they could qualify for Medicaid or
CHIP assistance or enroll in an employer plan, she said.

It's clearly a losing issue for them, although I do think they had a winning legal argument. And I am still mystified as to how the HHS can write rules that turn the legislation sideways, but I try to learn something new everyday.

FOR THE DEEPLY SKEPTICAL: An alternative explanation is that Team Obama did not want an extended discussion about their inability to draft legislation and insurers did not want an extended chat about their unwillingness to insure sick kids, so a tacit understanding was reached - the HHS will pretend to write something meaningful and insurers will pretend to play along; later, they will lapse back to business as usual and HHS will ignore it.

DEEP SKEPTICISM, CONTINUED: The Politico releases the victory letter from HHS Secretary Sebelius and the unconditional surrender from the insurance group; we applaud the kabuki but are unconvinced.

I should think any insurer who takes them on will immediately adjust premiums upward to cover the added "risk." Everyone else will pay, and over time they'll get the message: people with pre-existing conditions belong in a high-risk pool (CA has one; I was insured under it for a time). The premiums in such pools are substantially higher, but there is no reason on earth that they shouldn't be.

I wonder how long it will take insurers to prepare the Sibelius Surcharge (25% should be sufficient until actuarial assumptions can be validated) and apply it to bills? Sibelius is making it clear that state insurance commissioners no longer play any part in rate setting so insurers should avail themselves of the opportunity to make a little hay in the sunshine.

"And I am still mystified as to how the HHS can write rules that turn the legislation sideways"

No problem, that just means the next administration in 2012 (or sooner) can change those same "rules" without the need for any new legislation. Sure you pre-existing folks can be covered, but it is going to cost you the total amount of the treatment anyway.

What some don't appear to understand is that large corporations LOVE liberals, they love big government - its a great client. It spends huge sums of money expecting very little return and has a never ending credit card.

It would be great to have one rich client with one set of low expectations. The insurance companies get to blame the Government and the government get to blame the insurance companies while they both spend your money. Its all a game.

The insurance companies don't care, they are going to pass the added costs on to all of us. You think Bill Gates cares what his personnel tax rate is?

Sure glad that Specter and Schumer made such a fuss about Bush's signing statements. Now we've gone from an administration putting in writing how they will enforce the law to an administration making up the law as they go along.

And do keep in mind - since the insurers will be able to raise rates, they won't be paying for ...
That's news? Insurers don't pay for anything, they simply collect money from one group of people and pay it out on behalf of a potentially different group, collecting a small percentage fee for doing the paperwork. I still don't understand why the Obamacare opponents weren't more explicit (they did some but nowhere near enough) with the charge that all of the alleged generosity of Obamacare wasn't coming out of the pockets of evil corporations, but out of our pockets in the form of higher premiums. Millions upon millions of people who don't have pre-existing conditions and who aren't incurring medical expenses in excess of the lifetime caps and who haven't lost the safety blanket of employer provided health insurance all get to pay higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles all so the Democrats can feel good about themselves. I don't begrudge liberals wanting to feel good, I just wish they wouldn't use my money to do so.

Easy peasy then, just buy minimum health coverage, or pay the government fine and then when your child or you get sick, sign up for insurance. That should run the insurance companies out of business as they have to raise their rates for everyone responsible enough to buy insurance ahead of time. Then we can have government run healthcare. It'll be great, just like it is in Canada, Britain, France, where everybody who can ( 80% ) buy private insurance while paying for the government run stuff as well.

Could I get an interpretation on this section of the HC bill. Some are saying it is the beginning of the creation of Obama's private army, the health police. What say any of you?

SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—

(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.

Well, sara, supposedly we already have a "Health care corps" or something to that effect. The Surgeon General is the head of it. This throws an awful lot of money at it, and takes it beyond it's original purpose and scope, I do believe.

"In that sense, this preserves the Democratic Party role as the party of random wealth transfers. "

OMG. Okay let's remember this is a free country. We can CHOOSE to share risk.

There is no religious law that says their can be no risk sharing whatsoever so that the sainted rich are not bothered by one penny more than they need to be. Let's be practical, not worhsip at some weird altar for the rich.

Just remember, the rich might not always be rich. They might be one pyramid scheme away from being poor. Or the rich might have some beloved close relatives or wayward children who are not rich. Thus the rich can also choose to emerge themselves in a shared risk pool in case they are not always rich. It's just being practical for themselves.

This Glen Beck/Tea Party rich worshiping has got to be calmed down.

And if that rich guy ends up paying less, than so be it. It's the price to pay for having an orderly system. Some will pay less and some might pay more, but that's the breaks.

Why not insist that movie production and other media companies subsidize health care for children? Say, for every matinee ticket a child under 12 gets $20,000 of medical attention. Granted, the movie companies didn't go into business to hand out vastly more money to the deserving poor than they're taking in, but neither did the insurance companies, and - to their great credit, I'm sure - it seems to bother the movie/tv/newspaper crowd more.

Why do the takers always assume the rich were born rich and are only one "pyramid scheme" away from being poor (implying that it is only through those schemes that they were rich to begin with) rather than they were born poor and became rich and have already satisfied the takers obsession with everyone occupying every end of the economic scale at some point in life?

Mistake number one--and it is always, without exception, made--is to equate a certain annual income in a given year with being "rich."

A couple who made $300,000 last year are by no means certain to be rich in any meaningful sense of the term, and may be far from it. Yet this administration, and the legion of serfs it commands, believes that anything over $250,000 in any year must necessarily have been ill-gotten, and is available as a piggy bank for the welfare state.

If you live in CA or a number of other states, when your income reaches $250,000 from there on out you're working for half pay. It doesn't take an economist to tell you how this plays out in the long term.

Why don't we have the government start a ledger from birth for each citizen, calculate your costs to society (healthcare, housing, food, safety, infrastructure), record the amount in a ledger and citizens can work til they pay their burdens off?

Everyone starts off knowing how much they owe (everyone born in a certain year owe x), can decide how fast/hard to work to pay their debts to society and has their basic needs taken care of. A clean ledger and you are free to do as you will...

There's a part of me that can't wait until all these ardent supporters of this Health Care Bill get a nice dose of reality and a big slap in the face. They're so naive it probably hasn't occurred to them that the writers of the bill and Congressional "leaders" exempted themselves. Wait till all the "rich" (which includes small businesses struggling every day to survive) start laying off employees. Wait till these employers dump everybody into the government program and they have to pay fees and taxes they thought were only reserved for the "rich." I hope every time they wait in line for care, struggle to find a doctor for their child or aging parent that they think back at their comments against us "adults" that know better.

That's the price of living in a democracy, the majority rules, the minority is often forced to go along with it. If the country votes in Dems who everyone knows is going to enact healthcare, then the country chooses, and you gotta go along.

"I hope every time they wait in line for care, struggle to find a doctor for their child or aging parent that they think back at their comments against us "adults" that know better. "

Well I hope you all learn your lesson when the sky has not fallen and the earth hasn't plunged into the sun. People aren't dropped arbitrarily and disabled children don't reach lfetime maxes and are dropped. What a horrible world!

I mean the worst that could happen is we turn out like Europe, not like Hades, and Europe is not that bad a place. And we aren't even going as far as Europe. So these doomsday predictions that we are plunging into haelthcare Hades are obviously brainwashing stemmng from the health insurance industry and middle class American ignorance of the world.

DoT:Yet this administration, and the legion of serfs it commands, believes that anything over $250,000 in any year must necessarily have been ill-gotten, and is available as a piggy bank for the welfare state.

Only they don't really believe it. Or at least President Obama doesn't really believe it. Or perhaps more specifically, President Obama doesn't believe that making over $300,000 constituted his family being rich several years ago -- he and Michelle both regaled us with stories of how horrible it was that they couldn't pay off their college loans until after "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" pushed their income over the $1M mark*.

Interesting,in a way,to see the college tuition fix included in the health care bill.

But they do have the legion of serfs suckered into believing it.

----------
*And even then,Michelle whined about how expensive fresh fruit is and the rising costs ($20,000 a year!) of extracurriculars for her girls.

Po (in response to Sylvia): "What in the Hell is wrong with you people?"

I'm coming to think that there is something really wrong with the moral code of these folks. They cannot see the difference between choice and force. They cannot see the difference between one life and two. They recognize no freedoms other than sex.

Most of all (to me, anyway), they cannot see how treating an adult like an adolescent takes away something critical--it takes away who you are and leaves you constrained and unable to find what you're really made of.

That "progressives" would steal this from me and my fellow Americans has me angrier than I can ever recall being.

The WaPo has a picture today from 1957 Little Rock...this the the MSM meme. I guess they had to use a 1957 picture because there wasn't a 2009/2010 picture that fit the narrative.
The enemy is the MSM.

That's the price of living in a democracy, the majority rules, the minority is often forced to go along with it. If the country votes in Dems who everyone knows is going to enact healthcare, then the country chooses, and you gotta go along.

Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2010 at 06:59 AM

I guess you missed the whole 'constitution as a protection for the minority agianst the tyrany of the majority' thing.

Oh, and as I recall, Obama ran specificly on opposing the individual mandate (those of us here knew he was lying through his teeth of course). Sounds to me like we as a country voted against the mandate, yet we still have it. Not very democratic.

Now, having won an elecetion opposing both the individual mandate and a tax on healthcare premiums as income, we have a law that imposes an individual mandate and a tax on health insurnace premiums. And as the deficit explodes, don't think that tax on premiums will remain applicable to just "gold plated" plans.

Members of the House of Representatives may hire up to 18 permanent employees for their congressional and district offices. In the Member office, located in one of three Congressional Office Buildings, there is a distinct hierarchy in the office. The diagram to the right lists the titles of each position and the authority of each position.

Senators do not have a limit on the amount staff they can hire. As the diagram shows a Senator's office, housed in one of three Senate Office Buildings, operates in the same manner as an office in the House of Representatives

There is an old Sicilian saying, 'behind every great fortune is a great crime'. I think it is partially true.

Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2010 at 07:35 AM

Ah yes, wealth in and off itself, even modest wealth, is evidence of a crime. You sound just like Soviets in the early 20s when they were busy trying people and stipping them of their civil liberties for crimes such as owning a workshop or a mill before the revolution.

Btw, has anybody recently had a major problem with Firefox? Even since I agreed to upgrade to whatever POS version they're now running, the damn thing doesn't even open without crashing. It may well be my ancient computer is part of the problem (or the entire problem) but I'm now running an old IE based yahoo browser in its place.

LUN for an article I read in the dead-tree version of the WSJ this morning that features the latest in Pat Buchanan's Jew hating, in this case just making shit up regarding stuff Petraeus purportedly said which was "personally and forcefully" denied. Why does any publication or reputable network (which obviously doesn't include MessNBC) give this nut a forum?

Take a look at this Bloomberg cheer leading with special attention to "California took in 3.9 percent more since December than projected in January, Controller John Chiang said this month." and then take a look at reality.

Apparently, beating a crappy projection is cause for celebration - even though the reality is a 3% decline in tax receipts.

We ought to see if we can rent Orwell - these days he's spinning fast enough to be a power source.

NRO has a link to Laura's Today show piece. She knows how to forcefully get her points across and ignore being interrupted in the limited time she gets. We need more forceful speakers like that. Lauer seemed a little flustered.

NRO has a link to Laura's Today show piece. She knows how to forcefully get her points across and ignore being interrupted in the limited time she gets. We need more forceful speakers like that. Lauer seemed a little flustered.

Poor Matty was still picking sand out of his mangina before lobbing softballs and kisses to Preznit MomJeans this morning.

Thanks narciso. Poor Nooner; lost credibility is almost impossible to reclaim

I made this point on another thread yesterday. Alan Reynolds makes it much more thoroughly in toay's WSJ:

Punitive tax rates on high-income individuals do not increase revenue. Successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn.

From past experience, these are just a few of the ways that taxpayers will react to the Obama administration's tax plans:

• Professionals and companies who currently file under the individual income tax as partnerships, LLCs or Subchapter S corporations would form C-corporations to shelter income, because the corporate tax rate would then be lower with fewer arbitrary limits on deductions for costs of earning income.

• Investors who jumped into dividend-paying stocks after 2003 when the tax rate fell to 15% would dump many of those shares in favor of tax-free municipal bonds if the dividend tax went up to 23.8% as planned.

• Faced with a rapid phase-out of deductions and exemptions for reported income above $250,000, any two-earner family in a high-tax state could keep their income below that pain threshold by increasing 401(k) contributions, switching investments into tax-free bond funds, and avoiding the realization of capital gains.

• Faced with numerous tax penalties on added income in general, many two-earner couples would become one-earner couples, early retirement would become far more popular, executives would substitute perks for taxable paychecks, physicians would play more golf, etc.

In short, the evidence is clear that when marginal tax rates go up, the amount of reported incomes goes down. Economists call that "the elasticity of taxable income" (ETI), and measure it by examining income tax returns before and after marginal tax rates claimed a bigger slice of income reported to the IRS.

Okay, I'm sure I am stating the obvious, but the new democrat strategy is to stop the Tea parties from growing. That's why all this talk of inciting violence etc. They are afraid the Tea partys will grow to a point where they cannot ignore them, so if they make people think that violence happens there, they will not bother to get off their couches.

That's not a very heavy lift for the left as people constantly look for excuses not to do anything.

So if you haven't gone to a Tea Party, go to one on April 15th, and encourage everyone you know to do the same.

Individual insurance premiums will go up as the contracts renew. Too bad the group premiums don't change until January. They would guarantee a change in control of congress and more support for the repeal of this nonsense.

Totally agree Jane. Since most Tea Partiers have never gone to a protest, and are just nice middle Americans.
I felt discouraged after the March 16th gathering....only 500 or so people and the media only showed the LaRouche gang and some silly acting young people. Who wants to be part of that?
But the Kill the Bill Rally on the 20th was a kicker....and the Searchlight Rally was huge.
So keep coming...patriotic...stand up for what is right!

Sunny,apparently 300 major corporations report to Congress that they see significant layoffs and disincentives to hire unless Obamcare is significantly revised in a hurry.I also expect insurers will notify employers early of the high expected cost hikes and they will start notifying employees that because they can be fined on top of these much higher premiums if anyone opts for a subsidy, they will be entirely on their own in Obamaland care. It's cheaper to pay the fine.

DoT, for those people who like numerical examples (ok, maybe we are an *ahem* elite group) this one is particularly striking.

Consider Sweden, which has a 90% tax on income. Take the hypothetical Swedish doctor, who has a house, and the house needs to be painted. So, she has 2 options:

1) Earn $100,000 (well, of course the equivalent in kroner). Pay $90,000 in taxes, and pay $10,000 to the painter. Painter pays $9,000 in taxes, and ends up getting paid $1000 net for painting the house.

2) Doctor works less and paints the house herself. Government gets $99,000 less in tax revenue. Doctor's patients get $100,000 less medical care.

In fact, Swedish doctors work the fewest hours per year of any western country.

Too bad the group premiums don't change until January. They would guarantee a change in control of congress and more support for the repeal of this nonsense.

Posted by: SunnyDay | March 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM

That may not be a bad thing. If public opinion stays generally where it is now, the Republicans will retake the house. The significant rise in premiums in January 2011 will just re-enforce the need to take firm control of the Senate and remove Obama in 2012.

Most places I have been have open enrollment for their health care plans in October or November, because all the paperwork needs to be done up and filed in time for the end of the year. Which will make all of the cancellations of policies, huge premium hikes, cuts to coverage, etc. very explicit in September and October, just in time for the elections.

Just an observation here about the dangerous path the media and the Dems are taking with this 'Tea Partiers are violent racists' meme. It actually incites the far lefties much more than anyone on the right. People forget that the incident that sparked the cycle of violence in Bosnia wasn't a Serb attack on Muslims, but a Muslim attack on a Serbian wedding. If we ever do trip into a cycle of political violence here, it will probably be sparked by a left wing wacko attack on a peaceful Tea Party gathering.

I did some brief searching, and it appears Sweden's rate is under 50%. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a resident of CA or NY (among others) pays a higher total income tax rate than Swedes do. But the point is nevertheless valid, and it's valid here too.

A letter-writer to Powerline yesterday offered a theory as to why there is no enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate, and it makes sense to me. The letter, posted on a thread entitled "Non-enforcement: A Feature Not A Bug" is still up (scroll down a bit).

Sure, Porchlight, I bet you scheduled that house cleaning hoping you would be in hospital on Saturday. Then friends and family would want everything to be spiffy for you when you and baby returned home.

Ranger @ 10:54 is exactly right too. Patriotic Moms and Pops, kids, middle America and a lot of retire military. If some loon attacks or hurts some nice old couple, I know strong patriots are gonna step in to help.
The tenor at the 4 Tea Parties I have been to is patriotic camaraderie. Nice people that can't believe they are having to come to a Tea Party to get their representatives to listen.

According to Wikipedia Sweden has a 30% municipal income tax with a 20-25% state tax on high incomes. But it also has a payroll tax of 32%.
Interestingly their taxes are headed in the opposite direction of ours and have been for some time.
I rememeber reading a story in Forbes about the new supply side generation taking over not long ago.
Frickin Sweden has a more right wing, freedom loving government than we do now. Nice.

Zero has been provoking us ever since he took office. The auto takeover, the constant shredding of our Constitution, the in your face attitude, deathcare, etc. He and Rahm are scratching their heads or whatever it is they scratch when they go into deep thinker face trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with us, why we haven't reacted with violence and guns - so they can take them away. Their only frame of reference for how folks should react is fellow lefties who go to violence in 2 steps when things don't go their way:

1) Wait for the lone electron traveling in the vast wasteland of drug addled synapses to actually strike a functioning one and come up with names to call us.
2) Violence.

"I really despise this kind of thinking. Who creates the jobs, sylvia, the poor or the rich? "

Well sometimes they are poor and then they become rich after they create the jobs. In fact, much innovation was done by poor guys who were strivers. First generation immmigrants for example in times past. Often times the children of the rich that I know are drug taking spoiled brats.

So I don't hate the rich. I like the rich. But I don't worship the rich like it's some religion. The rich are people like you and me. And they have to pay just like everyone else. We shouldn't have some rich exempt tax, just to reward people for being rich and to show them how much we appreciate their richness.

--We shouldn't have some rich exempt tax, just to reward people for being rich and to show them how much we appreciate their richness.--

Yes, I know this is a waste of time people, but sylvia you do know we have a progressive tax system already in place right?
And that the top percentage of earners already pay an inordinately large share of income taxes, right?
And that every time marginal rates are cut for the top earners their share of tax receipts rises as they engage in more economic activity and shelter less income, right?
So what precisely is this "rich exempt tax" you speak of?

And they have to pay just like everyone else. We shouldn't have some rich exempt tax, just to reward people for being rich and to show them how much we appreciate their richness.

Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Hmmm... and could you identify such a "rich exempt tax" in the current tax code? Given that the top 10% of earners pay over 50% of the taxes in this country, you really need to explain what "rich exempt tax" you're refering to here.

It would also be interesting to see how you square:

There is an old Sicilian saying, 'behind every great fortune is a great crime'. I think it is partially true.

with:

So I don't hate the rich. I like the rich. But I don't worship the rich like it's some religion. The rich are people like you and me.

Oh, and as to:

Hey I've been going along with the current system for years and you didn't hear me whining about it. And I will again if it's repealed. That's life.

You've done nothing but whine and complain about the system that existed before last week for your entire time here.